Alexa N Ehlert1, Susan R Heckbert2,3,4, Kerri L Wiggins2,5, Evan L Thacker1. 1. Department of Health Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2. Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (formerly Group Health Research Institute), Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative billing codes for electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures may be useful for atrial fibrillation (AF) research if the codes are accurate relative to medical record documentation. HYPOTHESIS: Administrative billing codes accurately identify occurrence of electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures in AF patients. METHODS: We studied adults ages 30 to 84 who experienced new-onset AF between October 2001 and December 2004 in Group Health Cooperative (acquired by Kaiser Permanente in 2017), an integrated healthcare system in Washington state and northern Idaho. Using medical record review as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for 3 administrative billing codes for electrical cardioversion and 3 codes for AF ablation/maze procedures. RESULTS: Of 1953 study participants, during a mean (SD) of 1.5 (0.7) years of follow-up after AF onset, 470 (24%) experienced electrical cardioversion and 44 (2%) experienced ablation/maze procedures, according to medical record review. For electrical cardioversion, individual codes had 7.7% to 76.4% sensitivity, >99% specificity, 83.7% to 96.5% PPV, and 77.3% to 93.0% NPV. Considering any of 3 codes (code 1 or code 2 or code 3) improved sensitivity to 84.9%. For ablation/maze, individual codes had 18.2% to 47.7% sensitivity, >99% specificity, 66.7% to 95.5% PPV, and >98% NPV. Considering any of 3 codes improved sensitivity to 84.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative billing data accurately identified electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures and can be used instead of medical record review. Our findings apply to healthcare settings with available administrative billing databases.
BACKGROUND: Administrative billing codes for electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures may be useful for atrial fibrillation (AF) research if the codes are accurate relative to medical record documentation. HYPOTHESIS: Administrative billing codes accurately identify occurrence of electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures in AFpatients. METHODS: We studied adults ages 30 to 84 who experienced new-onset AF between October 2001 and December 2004 in Group Health Cooperative (acquired by Kaiser Permanente in 2017), an integrated healthcare system in Washington state and northern Idaho. Using medical record review as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for 3 administrative billing codes for electrical cardioversion and 3 codes for AF ablation/maze procedures. RESULTS: Of 1953 study participants, during a mean (SD) of 1.5 (0.7) years of follow-up after AF onset, 470 (24%) experienced electrical cardioversion and 44 (2%) experienced ablation/maze procedures, according to medical record review. For electrical cardioversion, individual codes had 7.7% to 76.4% sensitivity, >99% specificity, 83.7% to 96.5% PPV, and 77.3% to 93.0% NPV. Considering any of 3 codes (code 1 or code 2 or code 3) improved sensitivity to 84.9%. For ablation/maze, individual codes had 18.2% to 47.7% sensitivity, >99% specificity, 66.7% to 95.5% PPV, and >98% NPV. Considering any of 3 codes improved sensitivity to 84.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative billing data accurately identified electrical cardioversion and ablation/maze procedures and can be used instead of medical record review. Our findings apply to healthcare settings with available administrative billing databases.
Authors: Evan L Thacker; Paul N Jensen; Bruce M Psaty; Barbara McKnight; W T Longstreth; Sascha Dublin; Katherine M Newton; Nicholas L Smith; David S Siscovick; Susan R Heckbert Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Evan L Thacker; Barbara McKnight; Bruce M Psaty; W T Longstreth; Sascha Dublin; Paul N Jensen; Katherine M Newton; Nicholas L Smith; David S Siscovick; Susan R Heckbert Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Renu K Garg; Nicole L Glazer; Kerri L Wiggins; Katherine M Newton; Evan L Thacker; Nicholas L Smith; David S Siscovick; Bruce M Psaty; Susan R Heckbert Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Moritz F Sinner; Melissa A Greiner; Bradley G Hammill; João D Fontes; James P Daubert; Patrick T Ellinor; Adrian F Hernandez; Allan J Walkey; Susan R Heckbert; Emelia J Benjamin; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Steven C Hao; Tina D Hunter; Candace Gunnarsson; Jamie L March; Sarah A White; Joseph A Ladapo; Matthew R Reynolds Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Rashmee U Shah; James V Freeman; David Shilane; Paul J Wang; Alan S Go; Mark A Hlatky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Salina P Waddy; Allen J Solomon; Adan Z Becerra; Julia B Ward; Kevin E Chan; Chyng-Wen Fwu; Jenna M Norton; Paul W Eggers; Kevin C Abbott; Paul L Kimmel Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 10.121